 |
| Hubble image |
I like the following explanation that God must be a personal God, for I used to be one of those people that believed that God was an impersonal force. Not that this really made sense to me as such, it was just something I wanted to believe, because reality without God in it didn't make sense. I had tried that, being an atheist, and while freeing at that time, it was just so empty and cold.
The next question is whether God is personal or impersonal. Is God “the force” or “the face”? Pantheists and Buddhists would say God is not personal. God is a force not a face. Certain new age believers would agree. Humans, however, are personal, moral, rational beings, and being rational and personal is greater than to be impersonal. A dog is a higher being than a tree. If the personal is greater than the impersonal, how would it be possible for the greater to be devised from and dependent on the lesser? How could a rational person (a human being) come forth from an irrational, impersonal force? How could a rational world be created by an irrational, vague force? Can the lesser create the greater? No. Therefore we conclude that God is personal. God is rational.
Related link: Suicide or Catholicism? ~ Standing on My Head
There is another argument for God being personal. That at some point in the finite past the universe began. At that time space, material and time was created ex nihilo.
ReplyDeleteThe creation of space and material tells us that God is spaceless and immaterial, but the creation of time tells us something crucial, that God must be personal becuase at some point he decided to created.
*At that point space
ReplyDelete*he decided to create.
Jeremy,
ReplyDeleteMakes sense. :)